World University Games

[lampard10]

I noticed in the final tables of the World Univwersity Games in the BKK post this morning, that Australia was not sighted in the top 35 countries. Is this a mis-print, or has no-body in Oz reached university standard yet.

[TizMe]

All Oz Uni students are under 15 years of age. The WUG doesn't have any age categories to accommodate them.

[easy_jim]

I guess you didn't notice the World Athletics Championships last week. While the British put in our worst ever performance (we're normally in the top five) we were still way above the Aussies who scraped only a sinlge bronze.

There are very few genuinely international sports, i.e. sports played by everybody in the world like football and athletics. The Aussies can't compete at these sports so they concentrate on minority sports where there is not much competition to try to make themselves look good so they can keep up their self-delusion that they are a great sporting nation.

To be a great sporting nation you need to compete at the top sports.

[Siam_superfly]

I guess you didn't notice the World Athletics Championships last week.  While the British put in our worst ever performance (we're normally in the top five) we were still way above the Aussies who scraped only a sinlge bronze.

There are very few genuinely international sports, i.e. sports played by everybody in the world like football and athletics.  The Aussies can't compete at these sports so they concentrate on minority sports where there is not much competition to try to make themselves look good so they can keep up their self-delusion that they are a great sporting nation.

To be a great sporting nation you need to compete at the top sports.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ahhhh easy_Jim ( #ickhead )....think u got ur post wrong...first ur saying Australia only got a bronze ( so we must have competed ) right ?.....then ur saying that we dont compete at top sports.....compete and winning are to different things, not that u would know about that, being an English sports fan...coz winning is just so foreign to u......

.....ur not going to win the Ashes... so whatever

Also, are u related to Pro Fart or Lampard...coz this post smells of those too...

Edited August 23, 2005 by Siam_superfly

[Old Croc]

I noticed in the final tables of the World Univwersity Games in the BKK post this morning, that Australia was not sighted in the top 35 countries. Is this a mis-print, or has no-body in Oz reached university standard yet.

At least we know how to spell university!

[Old Croc]

I guess you didn't notice the World Athletics Championships last week.  While the British put in our worst ever performance (we're normally in the top five) we were still way above the Aussies who scraped only a sinlge bronze.

Neither UK nor Oz had a single medal of any colour until the penultimate day of the championships. 35 other countries were ahead of both at that stage including such luminaries as St Kitts and Nevis, Qatar and Lithuania. UK's first medal (a bronze) came in the womens 4x100 relay beating Oz

into 4th by .24 of a second. If the US hadn't dropped the batten even that medal wouldn't have eventuated. Apart from that, UK had a Pauline Radcliffe Gold and another relay bronze. Australias bronze came in the 5000 metres, a brilliant run by Mottram considering the strength of the African runners in that event. He received a bigger reception from the crowd than the winner! 16 th place with 1 gold and 2 bronze for a country of 60million odd people is hardly anything to boast about and not really that much ahead of Australia.

There are very few genuinely international sports, i.e. sports played by everybody in the world like football and athletics. 

Australia competes very well at football. It's soccer we're not very good at, although we did knock off England 3-1 last time we met. (and I'm sure we could come closer to the Danes than England!)

The Aussies can't compete at these sports so they concentrate on minority sports where there is not much competition to try to make themselves look good so they can keep up their self-delusion that they are a great sporting nation.

In the 2004 Olympics Oz finished 4th, behind the greatly populated nations of USA, Russia and China and ahead of everyone else!!  Not bad for a country of 20 million! Britain was 10th and won medals in such major sports as Badminton, Archery, Windsurfing, Sailing, Eventing(?) and Synchronised diving!

To be a great sporting nation you need to compete at the top sports.

Very true. Worrying times for the Old Blighted!

[easy_jim]

Ahhhh easy_Jim ( #ickhead )

Clever

think u got ur post wrong...first ur saying Australia only got a bronze ( so we must have competed ) right ?

Pedantic

.....then ur saying that we dont compete at top sports.....compete and winning are to different things, not that u would know about that, being an English sports fan...coz winning is just so foreign to u......

We got a gold.

.....ur not going to win the Ashes... so whatever 

Back to minority sports

Also, are u related to Pro Fart or Lampard...coz this post smells of those too...

two

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[easy_jim]

I guess you didn't notice the World Athletics Championships last week.  While the British put in our worst ever performance (we're normally in the top five) we were still way above the Aussies who scraped only a sinlge bronze.

Neither UK nor Oz had a single medal of any colour until the penultimate day of the championships. 35 other countries were ahead of both at that stage including such luminaries as St Kitts and Nevis, Qatar and Lithuania. UK's first medal (a bronze) came in the womens 4x100 relay beating Oz

into 4th by .24 of a second. If the US hadn't dropped the batten even that medal wouldn't have eventuated. Apart from that, UK had a Pauline Radcliffe Gold and another relay bronze. Australias bronze came in the 5000 metres, a brilliant run by Mottram considering the strength of the African runners in that event. He received a bigger reception from the crowd than the winner! 16 th place with 1 gold and 2 bronze for a country of 60million odd people is hardly anything to boast about and not really that much ahead of Australia.

There are very few genuinely international sports, i.e. sports played by everybody in the world like football and athletics. 

Australia competes very well at football. It's soccer we're not very good at, although we did knock off England 3-1 last time we met. (and I'm sure we could come closer to the Danes than England!)

The Aussies can't compete at these sports so they concentrate on minority sports where there is not much competition to try to make themselves look good so they can keep up their self-delusion that they are a great sporting nation.

In the 2004 Olympics Oz finished 4th, behind the greatly populated nations of USA, Russia and China and ahead of everyone else!!  Not bad for a country of 20 million! Britain was 10th and won medals in such major sports as Badminton, Archery, Windsurfing, Sailing, Eventing(?) and Synchronised diving!

To be a great sporting nation you need to compete at the top sports.

Very true. Worrying times for the Old Blighted!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You seem to be a bit more intelligent than superfly. It is true that Britains performance in the World Athletics Championships also wasn't great but the point is for us it was a dissapointment - only once before have we come outside the top five. We always finish above the Aussies.

Face it - the 3-1 win at Wembley was a friendly and we changed our whole team at halftime. It is competitive games that count.

You did do very well at the olympics but that does kind of back up my point as the olympics is made up of a mass of minority sports. You still didn't come anywhere in the athletics or football (and yes it was called football long before any other second rate game claimed the name).

[lovejoy]

I guess you didn't notice the World Athletics Championships last week.  While the British put in our worst ever performance (we're normally in the top five) we were still way above the Aussies who scraped only a sinlge bronze.

Neither UK nor Oz had a single medal of any colour until the penultimate day of the championships. 35 other countries were ahead of both at that stage including such luminaries as St Kitts and Nevis, Qatar and Lithuania. UK's first medal (a bronze) came in the womens 4x100 relay beating Oz

into 4th by .24 of a second. If the US hadn't dropped the batten even that medal wouldn't have eventuated. Apart from that, UK had a Pauline Radcliffe Gold and another relay bronze. Australias bronze came in the 5000 metres, a brilliant run by Mottram considering the strength of the African runners in that event. He received a bigger reception from the crowd than the winner! 16 th place with 1 gold and 2 bronze for a country of 60million odd people is hardly anything to boast about and not really that much ahead of Australia.

There are very few genuinely international sports, i.e. sports played by everybody in the world like football and athletics. 

Australia competes very well at football. It's soccer we're not very good at, although we did knock off England 3-1 last time we met. (and I'm sure we could come closer to the Danes than England!)

The Aussies can't compete at these sports so they concentrate on minority sports where there is not much competition to try to make themselves look good so they can keep up their self-delusion that they are a great sporting nation.

In the 2004 Olympics Oz finished 4th, behind the greatly populated nations of USA, Russia and China and ahead of everyone else!!  Not bad for a country of 20 million! Britain was 10th and won medals in such major sports as Badminton, Archery, Windsurfing, Sailing, Eventing(?) and Synchronised diving!

To be a great sporting nation you need to compete at the top sports.

Very true. Worrying times for the Old Blighted!

You seem to be a bit more intelligent than superfly. It is true that Britains performance in the World Athletics Championships also wasn't great but the point is for us it was a dissapointment - only once before have we come outside the top five. We always finish above the Aussies.

Face it - the 3-1 win at Wembley was a friendly and we changed our whole team at halftime. It is competitive games that count.

You did do very well at the olympics but that does kind of back up my point as the olympics is made up of a mass of minority sports. You still didn't come anywhere in the athletics or football (and yes it was called football long before any other second rate game claimed the name).

Was this how Soccer was introduced

The origins of the great game

The World Game.

So many cultures played a sport similar to modern soccer that no one can really say with any certainty when or where soccer began but it is known that the earlier varieties of what later became soccer were played almost 3000 years ago.

One of the earliest forms of soccer in which players kicked a ball on a small field has been traced as far back as 1004 B.C. in Japan. The Munich Ethnological Museum in Germany has a Chinese text from approximately 50 B.C. that mentions games very similar to soccer that were played between teams from China and Japan. The Chinese kicked a leather ball (filled) with hair) and it is known for sure that a soccer game was played in 611 A.D. in the ancient Japanese capital Kyoto.

The Romans played a game that somewhat resembled modern soccer. The early Olympic games in Rome featured twenty-seven men on a side who completed so vigorously that two-thirds of them had to be hospitalized after a fifty-minute game.

While historians kept records of events such as wars and religious movements they had very little interest in preserving the various origins of soccer or many other sports, so no one can say how soccer seems to have spread from Asia to Europe.

The most popular game on earth.

The King of Sports? Not according to King Edward.

In King Edward's reign of England (1307-1327), laws were passed that threatened imprisonment to anyone caught playing soccer. King Edward's proclamation said:" For as much as there is a great noise in the city caused by hustling over large balls, from which many evils may arise, which God forbid, we command and forbid on behalf of the King, on pain of imprisonment, such game to be used in the city future."

could it be the english did not invent the game but stole the idea?

[lampard10]

You seem to be a bit more intelligent than superfly. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So's my pet cockroach

[ozzydom]

I guess you didn't notice the World Athletics Championships last week.  While the British put in our worst ever performance (we're normally in the top five) we were still way above the Aussies who scraped only a sinlge bronze.

There are very few genuinely international sports, i.e. sports played by everybody in the world like football and athletics.  The Aussies can't compete at these sports so they concentrate on minority sports where there is not much competition to try to make themselves look good so they can keep up their self-delusion that they are a great sporting nation.

To be a great sporting nation you need to compete at the top sports.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you suggesting that cricket ,tennis,golf etc are minority sports ???

[easy_jim]

I guess you didn't notice the World Athletics Championships last week.  While the British put in our worst ever performance (we're normally in the top five) we were still way above the Aussies who scraped only a sinlge bronze.

There are very few genuinely international sports, i.e. sports played by everybody in the world like football and athletics.  The Aussies can't compete at these sports so they concentrate on minority sports where there is not much competition to try to make themselves look good so they can keep up their self-delusion that they are a great sporting nation.

To be a great sporting nation you need to compete at the top sports.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you suggesting that cricket ,tennis,golf etc are minority sports ???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cricket played by 7 or 8 countries - definitely.

Golf - basically played by the wealthy. Most Africans, Asians and South Americans will never even hold a club in their lives.

Tennis - debatable but again I would say it is mostly played in wealthy countries.

[Old Croc]

I guess you didn't notice the World Athletics Championships last week.  While the British put in our worst ever performance (we're normally in the top five) we were still way above the Aussies who scraped only a sinlge bronze.

Neither UK nor Oz had a single medal of any colour until the penultimate day of the championships. 35 other countries were ahead of both at that stage including such luminaries as St Kitts and Nevis, Qatar and Lithuania. UK's first medal (a bronze) came in the womens 4x100 relay beating Oz

into 4th by .24 of a second. If the US hadn't dropped the batten even that medal wouldn't have eventuated. Apart from that, UK had a Pauline Radcliffe Gold and another relay bronze. Australias bronze came in the 5000 metres, a brilliant run by Mottram considering the strength of the African runners in that event. He received a bigger reception from the crowd than the winner! 16 th place with 1 gold and 2 bronze for a country of 60million odd people is hardly anything to boast about and not really that much ahead of Australia.

There are very few genuinely international sports, i.e. sports played by everybody in the world like football and athletics. 

Australia competes very well at football. It's soccer we're not very good at, although we did knock off England 3-1 last time we met. (and I'm sure we could come closer to the Danes than England!)

The Aussies can't compete at these sports so they concentrate on minority sports where there is not much competition to try to make themselves look good so they can keep up their self-delusion that they are a great sporting nation.

In the 2004 Olympics Oz finished 4th, behind the greatly populated nations of USA, Russia and China and ahead of everyone else!!  Not bad for a country of 20 million! Britain was 10th and won medals in such major sports as Badminton, Archery, Windsurfing, Sailing, Eventing(?) and Synchronised diving!

To be a great sporting nation you need to compete at the top sports.

Very true. Worrying times for the Old Blighted!

You seem to be a bit more intelligent than superfly. It is true that Britains performance in the World Athletics Championships also wasn't great but the point is for us it was a dissapointment - only once before have we come outside the top five. We always finish above the Aussies.

Thanks for the backhanded compliment Jim. Pity I can't reciprocate. Your statements above (in red) are blatently untrue! In the last three World Championships Britain has finished 16th, 26th and equal 19th. At the same time Oz has come 33rd, 14th and equal 19th! No sign of a 5th place and the score is 1-1 and a tie head to head. I think you using the wrong oriface to talk from!

Face it - the 3-1 win at Wembley was a friendly and we changed our whole team at halftime. It is competitive games that count.

England played their full strength no.1 team for the first half and got crapped on. The fresh legged 2nd team just managed to stay in the game in the second half. To say it was a friendly and imply you wern't trying is pathetic. If true it would help explain why England can't win anything now.

You did do very well at the olympics but that does kind of back up my point as the olympics is made up of a mass of minority sports. You still didn't come anywhere in the athletics or football (and yes it was called football long before any other second rate game claimed the name).

In your tunnel vision world it appears only athletics and soccer are considered major sports. In the Olympics the majority of Australias golds came from swimming and cycling - major sports across the world.

People who know me are aware of my love for fishing. I threw in the soccer, football comment to see how many bites I would get. It's all too Easy_Jim

Lampy, is this guy your answer to Supermouth?

[Khutan]

I thought all the Oz Universities were full of foreign fee paying students, with no room left for the locals.

Therefore Australia would not have anyone that qualified to represent Australia

[Old Croc]

I guess you didn't notice the World Athletics Championships last week.  While the British put in our worst ever performance (we're normally in the top five) we were still way above the Aussies who scraped only a sinlge bronze.

There are very few genuinely international sports, i.e. sports played by everybody in the world like football and athletics.  The Aussies can't compete at these sports so they concentrate on minority sports where there is not much competition to try to make themselves look good so they can keep up their self-delusion that they are a great sporting nation.

To be a great sporting nation you need to compete at the top sports.

Are you suggesting that cricket ,tennis,golf etc are minority sports ???

Cricket played by 7 or 8 countries - definitely.

Golf - basically played by the wealthy. Most Africans, Asians and South Americans will never even hold a club in their lives.

Tennis - debatable but again I would say it is mostly played in wealthy countries.

These statements are as ludicrous as your last posting! I won't waste my time refuting them as they are obviously incorrect to anyone who knows sport!

[lampard10]

[Lampy, is this guy your answer to Supermouth?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sounds like a septic to me

[lampard10]

[

Golf - basically played by the wealthy.  Most Africans, Asians and South Americans will never even hold a club in their lives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Theres a bloke called Tiger Woods that's an Afro/Asian. What do you reckon his chances of playing golf?

Anyway I started this thread because it seems strange that they were not in it, not to start a slagging match. That's over on the cricket thread. Can someone close this before it gets out of hand?

Edited August 24, 2005 by lampard10